Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate response

What the science says...

The IPCC lead authors are experts in their field, instructed to fairly represent the full range of the up-to-date, peer-reviewed literature. Consequently, the IPCC reports tend to be cautious in their conclusions. Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions.

Climate Myth...

IPCC is alarmist
"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change." (Roy Spencer)

One characterisation of the IPCC is that it is politically motivated to exaggerate the dangers of global warming and the level of human influence on climate change. When IPCC predictions are compared to observed data, the opposite is shown to be the case.

Conservative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scenarios

For example, the acceleration in fossil fuel CO2 emissions is tracking the worst case scenarios used by the IPCC AR4 (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009). Consequently, atmospheric CO2 is increasing ten times faster than any rate detected in ice core data over the last 22,000 years.

Figure 1: Observed global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production compared with IPCC emissions scenarios. The coloured area covers all scenarios used to project climate change by the IPCC (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Conservative Attribution of Global Warming to Humans

While the IPCC first made statements attributing global warming to humans in 1995, Cook et al. (2013) found that there has been over a 90% consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that humans are causing global warming since at least 1991.

Figure 2: Percentage of papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. From Cook et al. (2013).

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

However, the body of scientific research has consistently shown that human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more warming than has been observed over the past half century (because aerosols and other non-greenhouse gas temperature influences have had a net cooling effect). Wigley and Santer (2012) found that this IPCC greenhouse gas warming attribution statemt is far too conservative.

"Here, the probability that the model-estimated GHG component of warming is greater than the entire observed trend (i.e., not just greater than ‘‘most’’ of the observed warming) is about 93%. Using IPCC terminology, therefore, it is very likely that GHG-induced warming is greater than the observed warming. Our conclusion is considerably stronger than the original IPCC statement."

In fact their central estimate is that humans are responsible for 100% of the observed global warming for the 1950–2005 timeframe, with greenhouse gases responsible for 160% (Figure 3).

As Figure 3 shows, the body of scientific literature is still very consistent in finding that grenhouse gases have most likely caused more warming than has been observed over the past half century, and thus that the IPCC has been too conservative in this respect.

Conservative Sea Level Rise Projections

Satellite and tide-gauge measurements show that sea level rise is accelerating faster than expected. Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) compares the historical sea level tide gauge data from Church and White (2011) and recent satellite altimetry sea level data (orange and red in Figure 4, respectively) to the 2001 and 2007 IPCC report model projections (blue and green in Figure 4, respectively). The observational data in Figure 4 are aligned so that extending the satellite best-fit line (red) back to 1990 will match the IPCC projections at that date, where the IPCC TAR model runs begin.

Figure 4: Sea level measured by satellite altimeter (red with linear trend line; AVISO data from (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) and reconstructed from tide gauges (orange, monthly data from Church and White (2011)). Tide gauge data were aligned to give the same mean during 1993–2010 as the altimeter data. The scenarios of the IPCC are again shown in blue (third assessment) and green (fourth assessment); the former have been published starting in the year 1990 and the latter from 2000.

The authors conclude as follows.

"The satellite-based linear trend 1993–2011 is 3.2 ± 0.5 mm yr-1, which is 60% faster than the best IPCC estimate of 2.0 mm yr-1 for the same interval"

Conservative Arctic Sea Ice Decline Projections

Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models. The thickness of Arctic sea ice has also been on a steady decline over the last several decades. September sea ice thickness has been decreasing at a rate of 57 centimetres per decade since 1987.

Figure 5: Observed (red line) and modelled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km2, the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Accurate Global Surface Warming Projections

Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) also found that the IPCC global surface temperature projections have been acccurate thus far. The paper applies the methodology of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), using the statistical technique of multiple regression to filter out the influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the global surface temperature data, finding that when these short-term influences are removed, the IPCC projections accurately match the observed human-caused global surface warming trend (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-month running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the 2001 report, green from the 2007 report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

Asymmetric Challenges to Science

A recent study (Freudenburg 2010) investigated what it calls 'the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge', the phenomenon in which reports on science fail to evaluate all outcomes, favoring certain probabilities while ignoring others. In the case of the IPCC, the researchers found that the media steadfastly challenge the predictions on the basis that they are exaggerated, worst-case scenarios. What they fail to speculate on is whether the opposite is true; that it may be equally correct to suggest that things might be far worse. This is how the researchers summarised their findings:

"...new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective [that disruption through AGW may be far worse than the IPCC has suggested] than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that...if reporters wish to discuss ‘‘both sides’’ of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate ‘‘other side’’ is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date".

While their study specifically addressed the relationship between the maintream media (MSM) and climate science, the overall conclusion they reached suggests that criticisms of the kind elaborated here may be highly inappropriate:

"If the intention is to offer true balance in reporting, the scientifically credible ‘‘other side’’ is that, if the consensus estimates such as those from the IPCC are wrong, it is because the physical reality is significantly more ominous than has been widely recognized to date".

Brysse et al. (2012) suggests that the IPCC and climate scientists in general tend to be too conservative in their predictions because they are "erring on the side of least drama" (ESLD).However, they point out that an underprediction is just as wrong as an overprediction. Climate scientists may be introducing bias into their predictions for fear of being called "alarmist," but this conservative bias may leave us unprepared for the magnitude of future climate change.

Comments

While I understand the two first pictures, I dont get the last one (figure 4) to make sense. The observed trend starts to diverge from the IPCC models mean at latest in the end of the 1970's - so what were those models based on, pre-1980 data?

The very best defense of the IPCC will be their next report. We've seen this movie before and we'll see it again; IPCC releases latest synthesis, doubters and impressionists pile on, no significant dent is made.

The IPCC is undergoing a review of its processes with an eye to making its next report more useful and less susceptible to synthetic controversy. Learn about the review here at the InterAcademy Council website.

citizenschallenge,
Maybe the IPCC itself, has helped to diminish 'its public moral authority', by, among other things, purposely publishing outrageous predictions, even though two expert reviewers and the Indian government adviced them to withdraw the erroneous claim (e.g. the Himalayan glaciers).

Recent news:The world's leading climate science body must "fundamentally reform" its organisation and how it operates if it is to regain the public's trust, according to a major review.

There is a wonderful (in the sense of frightening) piece by Roy Spencer published by the George C. Marshall Institute. http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=912
Put on your head clamp and read it carefully. He thinks we should dump the IPCC process, altogether. And why? He argues it was instigated by politicians who "saw a way to accomplish personal goals."

The really frightening feature, to me, is that in this letter he doesn't even mention one of those putative goals. Whatever those "personal" goals might be (sustainable society, clean air, maintenance of biological diversity, survival of great grandchildren, ...)

At the George C. Marshall Institute, apparently, that qualifies as analysis. And that institute doesn't support any actions instigated by politicians? I think it does from time to time. I assume that institute's standards really, implicitly, involve the evaluation of the goals of politicians. So the "bad" goals are implicit in Spencer's argument in this piece. Spencer is a coward because he will not explicitly pen his specific accusations. The George C. Marshall Institute, as a research institute, is made bankrupt by passing off Spencer's rant as anything like research.

Anyway, this note by Spencer suggests to me he is grinding out some other agenda through his "science" rather than simply doing science.

How crazy is our world? Spencer wants to shut down the IPCC, because the IPCC was created by politicians who wanted scientists to report their understanding of the science. Meanwhile Spencer reports to the George C. Marshall Institute.

(I also learned in that piece that Spencer's boss at UAH is Christy. That was a surprise to me.)

If they're not thrilled with reading there are good videos at Crock of the Week and Potholer 54 - often focused on the Monckton stuff. Fool Me Once is on that entirely - but fan. tas. tic. presentations anyway.

The results this last week for Arctic sea ice - lowest ever extent, lowest ever area, lowest ever volume - tell us that the IPCC was nowhere near 'alarmist' enough on this particular topic.

As for floods. Pakistan, Australia, several South American countries, USA, several African countries have all had exceptional events recently.

Droughts, likewise.

For the policy implications? The scientists can only be as direct as possible in their drafts for IPCC reports. When the international negotiations start on watering down those direct scientific statements, the scientists try to keep the statistical likelihoods as close to their results as possible. But the reports are always less 'alarming' in your words, direct would be my preference, than the original.

I'd like to see the "director's cut" for the next IPCC report. Seeing what it looks like before the editors / negotiators got their hands on it might be instructive.

Hello, I'm a newcomer in this field. I have read most of the arguments on all sides. This site by the way is really good. Keep up the good work

The point of my question here is - OK, AGW is real, but for policy and decision makers, how much confidence can be placed in IPCC predictions, and how much weight should we attach to them?

In Wikipedia article on IPPC the Chairman biography link is given here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri] and the following is stated:

'On 20 April 2002, Pachauri was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel established by the WMO and UNEP to assess information relevant for understanding climate change. Pachauri has been vocal on the issue of climate change and said, "What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target." 350 refers to the level in parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that top climate scientists such as NASA's James Hansen agree to be a safe upper limit in order to avoid a climate tipping point.'

AS the current CO2 levels are 385 ppm, in excess of 350 ppmv, my questions are;
1. Is thus is a misquote from either of the two sources?
2. If so, should the Wiki text be corrected?
3. If not, what are the consequences in terms of confidence in future IPCC predictions, for policy makers?

This is not an idle question, it is a question which concerns me when having to make financial decisions on allocation of public resources.

It would be great if any replies could be objective, rather than emotive.

lancelot The warming from increased levels of CO2 is not instantaneous, the thermal inertia of the oceans means that it will take a century or so for all of the warming to which we are already committed to be fully realised. Thus even though we are now above the 350ppm figure doesn't mean that the "climate tipping point" should already have happened, but that if we stabilise at that level the tipping point may occur before the climate reaches its new equilibrium. Essentially there is no contradiction there.

Just because we have reached a level of 385ppm doesn't mean we can't stabilise at 350ppm.

lancelot - it's not a misquote or typo. Some argue that current CO2 levels are too high because as Dikran notes, we have not yet experienced the full climate effects of the CO2 we've emitted thus far. Looking at historical data from when CO2 levels were this high in the past, sea levels were significantly higher, for example. See this post.

On the other hand, realistically it will take a major effort just to limit atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm. Personally I think that should be our target, and in the future maybe we can find ways to reduce the level back down to 350 ppm. See this post about the global warming 'danger limit'.

Hang on lancelot.
The full quote reads "What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target."

He said it in 2009. The CO2 concentration was already blowing past 380ppm. The 350ppm target is really very, very ambitious because it requires us not to just cut emissions, but to reduce concentrations.

I don't know what kind of policy/financial work you do. But if someone comes to you with a proposal to quarry, crush and distribute dusts & gravels of CO2 absorbing rocks, do the world a favour and set them to work.

You omitted: '350 ppmv is a 'Safe upper limit... in order to avoid a "climate tipping point" There is no additional qualification to that statement such as give by dana1981.

The consensus view here seems to be that there is no misquote. If that is correct, it worries me.

350 as a 'stable state' level is indeed very ambitious. In view of the ongoing rate of development in China, India and the rest of the developing world, it is also, I think, totally unrealistic. We are heading for at least 450 ppmv, possibly 500 ppmv. To get back to a stable level of 350 will take a very, very long time. And I am yet to be convinced that it is necessary.

But my main point is that by apparently 'crying wolf' too often, the IPCC loses public credibility.

lancelot It is dissapointing that so soon after writing that replies should be "objective rather than emotive" you are already using emotive rhetorical terms, such as suggesting the IPCC are apparently "'crying wolf'", when in fact they are doing no such thing and the confusion lies at your end, as I have already pointed out.

Passing 350ppm DOES NOT imply that we should have already observed the tipping point to which the quote alludes. The quote refers to a stabilisation value for carbon dioxide, it refers to a long term objective, and hence the dangers it seeks to avoid are likewise long term. Not observing those tipping points on passing 385ppm does not mean that the danger has passed and the tipping point wont happen because of action we have already taken (unless we do something about it - such as stabilise at 350ppm).

If you truly are in the position where you must "make financial decisions on allocation of public resources" then you are under an obligation to either understand the science more fully, or obtain trustworthy expert opinion.

If you are going to accuse the IPCC of "crying wolf" based on a misunderstanding of the science then it is not surprising that you have a difficulty on your hands as you are dismissing the trustworthy experts without developing a basic understanding of the science.

lancelot, so far as I can tell the "climate tipping point" quotation is the wording of the people who wrote the Wikipedia article rather than Pachauri or Hansen. It is not shown in quotation marks in the article, and does not appear in the link cited as the source.

Thus, if you are accusing the IPCC of "crying wolf" with the 'tipping point' comment... it didn't come from either of the two scientists you are apparently conflating (improperly IMO) with the IPCC reports. Also note that there ought to be a difference between the carefully reviewed work of thousands of scientists from around the world in the IPCC reports and things Rajendra Pachauri happened to say off the cuff. You accuse the IPCC of losing credibility for promoting a target limit of 350 ppm... but that target does not appear in the IPCC reports.

I also note that you give absolutely NO reason for believing that Hansen's 350 ppm limit is 'wrong'. You just take that as a given and then fault the IPCC for "crying wolf"... even though they didn't.

Dikran and CBD, hello.
I am quite familiar with the science.
I did not 'improperly conflate' RKP and J Hansen with IPCC. Wikipedia does. Don't shoot the messenger!
RKP, in his highly public position, should not say things 'off the cuff'. No-one in such a position should.
How is whether the figure appears in IPCC reports relevant to the impact of public statements made 'off the cuff'? Have you heard of the 'Media'?
CBDunkerson you wrote: "the 'tipping point' comment... it didn't come from either of the two scientists" I didnt say that it did. The Wiki article appears to.
Safe upper limit: If an engineer says that 100 lbs per sq ft is a safe upper limit for loading an elevator, he means exactly that. He does not mean that is a limit 'just in case' someone were to walk in carrying another 100 or 200 lbs or whatever. He means it the safe upper limit as would be generally understood in any other field I can think of. If it is not that sort of limit in climate science, what exactly is it? - this seems to be turning into a game of words. I have simply pointed out how the Wiki quote could be (mis)understood by the average reader. Take that up with Wikipedia perhaps?

In general: Do you think 350ppmv is a realistic global target? If so, when do you think it might be achievable?

lancelot wrote: "I am quite familiar with the science. " Very clearly this is not the case, otherwise you would not have seen any contradiction in the idea that 350ppm is a "safe" stabilisation concentration yet not having observed a "tipping point" given that we had already past that level. The reason there is no contradiction has already been explained to you, and yet you have not accepted it, nor refuted it. This is not encouraging.

A more realistic safe upper limit argument would be to say that the safe upper limit for dietary intake would be 2500 calories per day. However if on one day you eat 4000 calories at a banquet, the fact you didn't have a heart attack or stroke on that day does not mean that 2500 calories is not the long term safe upper limit.

The 350ppm is a safe LONG TERM stabilisation figure, not a limit on the safe SHORT TERM transient concentration.

If you think it is just that the Wikipedia article is badly worded, why are you discussing it here, rather than at Wikipedia (I suspect the chaps at Wikipedia would point out the error in your position much as I have)?

"In general: Do you think 350ppmv is a realistic global target? If so, when do you think it might be achievable? "

This is pretty off-topic for this article, if you want to discuss it in detail, please find a more appropriate thread. From a scientific perspective, the natural environment is currently taking about 1.6GtC per year out of the atmosphere. 40ppmv is about 19GtC, so it would take the natural environment at least 12 years to get back down to 350ppm if we cut emissions to zero today. That gives an approximate lower time limit. So of course it is achievable, however I am rather cynical about those in public office and those that elect them. Both are generally too focussed on short term self-interest to act for the long term good of us all. Thus 450ppmv is a more realistic stabilisation point (the politics being the limiting factor not the science), and we will have to put up with the consequences, which will generally be worst in those parts of the world least capabale of adapting and who generally will have been least responsible for creating the problem.

lancelot, no the Wikipedia article does not attribute Pachauri's position to the IPCC. In any case, it hardly matters whether 'you' or 'your interpretation of the Wikipedia article' are incorrect... the position stated (by whomever) is not accurate. You also still haven't given ANY reason for the claim that 350 ppm is "crying wolf"... which is certainly your own claim rather than anything in the Wikipedia article.

It needs to be understood that the primary difference between Hansen's 350 ppm estimate and the more common 450 ppm estimate of 'safe' CO2 levels is the timeframes involved. If we look only at 'fast' (e.g. within 100 years or so) feedbacks then we could likely go up to about 450 ppm. However, if you take the long term view then going over 350 ppm would eventually cause significant warming and flooding of major coastal cities around the world.

The relevant questions then become how soon would major consequences from exceeding 350 ppm manifest, and would that allow us enough time to get back down below 350 ppm. Is 350 ppm a reasonable target to get back down to within 500 years? I'd say yes... if we switch away from fossil fuels in the next several decades and then work on technologies to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere that seems entirely possible. Could we get back to 350 ppm within 50 years? Certainly not... but then we shouldn't be seeing major problems (e.g. large sea level rises, major agricultural disruptions, millions of deaths) in 50 years unless we continue to push CO2 levels higher.

The IPCC is a political organisation - they choose the revieweres, the policies, they review the reports and choose the board in plenary sessions. Politicians are also involved in the Summary For Policymakers..

This is from their very own website.

"The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions. "

The IPCC was setup by the UNEP - the United Nations Environment Program...

Tell you what, krisbaum: I'll copy the reference list for the aerosols section of AR4 and post it on a neutral site dedicated just to that list. Will you then start looking through the literature?

I don't care if the IPCC was formed by the Nevada State Clowns Association. That's no reason not to read the referenced literature. That literature was not peer reviewed by the IPCC; it was peer reviewed by the dozens of journals in which climate science is published. It was not summarized and interpreted by politicians. It was summarized and interpreted by scientists. If you have a problem with the credentials of any of the hundreds of scientists involved, let's have out with it. You are implying that these hundreds of scientists are colluding to construct a lie, and that the rest of mainstream climate science is in on it.

A lot of greenpeace members? WTH? "a lot"?

What sort of political stripe need a scientist be in order to gain your respect? Richard Alley is a conservative. Does he count? Or is he just a dupe of the secret leftist scientist coalition?

krisbaum, the list of IPCC and their affiliations can be found here. Furthermore you can see what each said, and what the chapter authors did with there comment. To be a reviewer, all you basically need to do is request a draft and sign an NDA. It's pretty hard to see how you could set up a more transparent and fair way for governments to get a review of the state of climate science.

Now what is your evidence for bias? Hopefully a little stronger than "I dont like their conclusions so it must be wrong". Where is your evidence that they failed to examine important papers that would result in a different conclusion? If you are so sure they are wrong about aerosols, then surely you must have a paper that forms that opinion?

as you can see, the government chooses 'experts', a 'bureaux' selects authors.. tbose authors produce a 2nd draft which then goes to a combination of the expert panel & government officials and a final review!!!

it is NOT a purely scientific publication / report.

if it was, you would have absolutely no government involvement until the document has been produced.

even better, you would have a group of people or committee completely divorced from the IPCC that would review what they had produced - and have the ability to deny publication pending changes or review. this does not happen.

the SPM also gets written by the plenary. It is released BEFORE the main report.

scaddenp - when i investigated the whole aerosol problem, i discovered that the IPCC dont have any solid science to base their estimates of forcing on.

there are no solid papers on the aerosol effect - that definitively tell scientists whether aerosol levels have increased or decreased and by how much over the last 100 years. This is because we didnt record aerosols around the world until recently. Go find me one that has historial records. It does not exist.

The sulfate measurements over the last few centuries krisbaum @25 claims do not exist:
(Source)

"Figure 1: (a) Sulfate concentrations in several Greenland ice cores and an Alpine ice core. Also shown are the total SO2 emissions from sources in the US and Europe. The inset shows how peaks due to major volcanic eruptions have been removed by a robust running median method followed by singular spectrum analysis."

There is ample opportunity to challenge the "experts" appointed to write the IPCC reports if you can document that they are not qualified. Can you provide an example of a single one who was not qualified? Please do not waste my time claiming anyone who has a different opinion from you is unqualified, suggest only people who are really not experts in the field.

The entire IPCC report is put online for comments before the final review. You, Exxon-Mobile, Anthony Watts and anyone else interested can comment and ask for changes in the wording or conclusions. How could you get more unbiased review than that?

The SPM is reviewed word by word by representatives of all the countries. It is released in advance so that anyone interested can read it and develop their arguments (the draft of the scientific report is already on line for review when the SPM is written). Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration did not look out for oil interests and keep in mind the deniers arguments in this word by word review? In fact, the governments of oil producing countries, with help from the USA, diluted the conclusions of the scientists in the SPM. Your suggestion that the IPCC is alarmist is backwards, it reduces the conclusions to make AGW seem less of a problem.

Are you suggesting a committee to review the work of the IPCC (which is essentially a big committee)? Who will appoint the members of this committee? If not the governments (who set up the Intergovernmental PCC) than who? Maybe you can select the members of this duplicate committee. Perhaps I can appoint a committee to oversee the one you appoint. Your suggestion is absurd. Please consider your arguments before you present them here and make sure that they make sense.

Do you realize that the IPCC has only a handful of employees? The work is all done by volunteer scientists. The IPCC only coordinates the process.

Tom Curtis addressed the claims in post 25 above, I thought I'd add that, historically, the serious study of atmospheric aerosols dates back to the time when atmospheric sciences started being a field of their own and separated from geology, inthe late 1800s. Seminal work on the subject was published by Aitken in 1888, 1891, 1894, 1895.

As of today, aerosols are the focus of intense work, and several scientific journals are exclusively dedicated to the subject.

Greenland aerosol measurements tell you nothing, it is fairly common knowledge that aerosols do not travel far from their source typically 10km or so. You need localised measurements to get any kind of global pattern.

Michael Sweet;

'The entire IPCC report is put online for comments before the final review. '

Yes it is, but the final version is the responsibility of authors, and they declare what changes will be incorporated into the final version and which wont.

Sure here's an example of appointing non-experts;

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/richardk/

Richard Klein ..

An IPCC Lead Author at the age of 25 - back in 1994 after completing a geology degree 2 years prior. at 28 he was promoted to the most senior role - Coordinating Lead Author..

'The SPM is reviewed word by word by representatives of all the countries. It is released in advance so that anyone interested can read it and develop their arguments (the draft of the scientific report is already on line for review when the SPM is written). Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration did not look out for oil interests and keep in mind the deniers arguments in this word by word review? '

Micheal Sweet;

The point is; they hold a plenary with politicians and together create the SPM for release into the world before the main report has been released!!! How can the summary be validated against the main report or scrutinised correctly by external scientists?

My suggestion is that, considering the report produced by the IPCC is being used to decide one of the most critical fates of humanity - spending trillions on alternative energy in effect - there could be an external policing of their processes. I'm sure you can work out for yourself how this could work in the future - the rest of the world seem to be capable of such ideas - take law enforcement and the state for example. Do you see judges doubling as policemen and appearing on their own jury for a crime they've been accused of?

[DB] Comments constructed to comply with the Comments Policy never need moderation. Comments in violation of it, such as yours, invite moderation. As do complaints about moderation.

This is a moderated forum in which the science of climate research and climate change is discussed. The no-holds-barred, anything-goes discussions commonplace on fake-skeptic blogs have no place here. FYI.

They produce the report used by governments to convince the world about global warming & the science behind what we know at present. It has to be one of the most important documents on the planet at present. It is used to decide the fate of trillions of dollars of investment through carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes.

It is here in Australia - the IPCC is quoted as the definitive place to go to for climate change science/recommendations. It was pivotal in the stern report brought out in the UK, and without it there wouldnt be a Carbon Tax in Australia.

I think the police analogy came across wrong. What I mean is, they produce a report but there is no external auditor or group of people that have no vested interests, scrutinising the report and how its generated.

' In fact, the governments of oil producing countries, with help from the USA, diluted the conclusions of the scientists in the SPM. Your suggestion that the IPCC is alarmist is backwards, it reduces the conclusions to make AGW seem less of a problem'

Well, this alarms me just as much as the opposite. No government should have their hands in diluting or concentrating such a report. Its my point exactly. At least we agree that politics is getting in the way ;).

krisbaum: "My suggestion is that, considering the report produced by the IPCC is being used to decide one of the most critical fates of humanity - spending trillions on alternative energy in effect - there could be an external policing of their processes."

This represents a fundamental error in analysis on your part, krisbaum. The IPCC ARs gather the existing science and integrate it into a readable summary. If the IPCC did not exist, the science would still be there saying the same thing, and the probable outcomes would be just the same (or arguably worse). You imply the IPCC is a bad idea and subject to corruption. I say not having the IPCC is a worse idea. I can imagine a version of the IPCC that is worse than nothing at all, but the current form is far, far from that. I agree that the process can improve, but I fail to see how a few errors and loose practices (recognized and in correction) are justification for condemning the whole process.

You also seem to assume that all of the regular SkS posters bow before the IPCC and are oblivious to its problems. No. In fact, they are so aware, from having to explain it daily, that they know where practice is sound and where it needs work. It is a large project with many aspects. It does inform the world, and it does a much better job than individuals trying to piece together the science and then explain it and the implications to the world.

There is no error in my analysis - the problem is much wider than 'a few erros and loose practices'. You have countless IPCC staff who are inexperienced scientists and not experts. They determine what to include and what to not include from the science - and that doesnt just mean peer reviewed, they also include other grey literature. Something like 1/3 of the references in the last report are grey literature - WWF reports, Greenpeace, news, un-peer reviewed.. etc..

If you believe this kind of working practice is acceptable then fair enough, I on the other hand think its not.

The world needs people who believe and are passionate. I have no problem with activists, climate activists or environmentalists - on the contrary - if it wasnt for some of these people, but - you have to consider people's vested interests and take precautions to make sure those interests dont get in the way.

It would be like the IPCC obtained funding and had 1/3 of its staff filled with Exxon employees. What would you think then?

Response:

[DB] "You have countless IPCC staff who are inexperienced scientists and not experts."

Participants here are not allowed to simply make things up as they please. You will need to furnish source citations for extravagant claims such as this. Else moderators will intervene.

Krisbaum - governments govern. That's what they do. They do it will if their policy is well-informed. To suggest that government should not be involved is absurd. They requested the report. Yes, the editors make their decisions but every decision is transparent. Which one do you agree with.

You want audit by others with no vested interests - what like the scientists of the world? That was the idea in drawing up the IPCC. Who do you propose should do this audit? the uninformed? And whose choses the auditors? And would you then demand audit of the auditors if you still didnt like the answer.

Note that "grey literature" was only used by WG2 in the absence of any other. However, you are challenging WG1 but so far I dont see a basis for that.

Actually, you have made my day. Thanks. I think these news broke here at SkS too but I somehow missed it.

And ok, you realize the police/judge/offender juxtaposition was a bit too much. Thank you again for being this open minded.

So your main criticism is that the process does not garantee the quality of the information. You even imply that it has vested interests, and is therefore biased (correct me if I read too much from your comment).

I will set aside for a moment the fact that it is painfully and repeatedly reviewed by thousands of scientists from all over the world before publication - including countries that make great efforts afterwards to ignore it in pratice.

After 22 years, we have had time to check some of the main projections, and they are basically right. Even too conservative sometimes (sea level rise). Where would you say the report missed the point and got carried away by its "bias"?

Thats correct, the government should not be involved in generating the report. Like I mentioned before, do you have the police judging their own court cases? Do you have the government enforcing their own laws? We have separate entities for a reason.

'what like the scientists of the world? That was the idea in drawing up the IPCC. Who do you propose should do this audit? the uninformed?'

Its pretty easy to find people that have no vested interests in the IPCC's conclusions. You dont need to audit what the auditors write - you just need a cross-check from another external party.

Over a 3rd of their sources are grey like i mentioned, yet Pachauri declares all sources 'peer reviewed literature'. So he says one thing and does another. Let it be clear the shortfallings of the report, or enforce your standards.

Grey literature is used throughout the whole IPCC report. The fact you admit there was grey literature is enlightening. Dont you therefore see it a problem Pachauri tells everybody that its peer reviewed when its not?

Response:

[DB] "Grey literature is used throughout the whole IPCC report."

Please provide a link to a reputable source that documents the usage of such literature in WG1, or, failing that, provide a link to that portion of WG1 in question and to the grey literature on which it was based. Note that fake-skeptic blogs are not reputable.

Failure to provide such a link will result in further moderation of your comments here.

Response: [DB] Either something like a commentary paper in a peer-reviewed journal or showing directly which section of WG1 was based on which specific piece of grey literature. It was your statement; it is incumbent upon you to be able to furnish documentation supporting it...or to withdraw the assertion.

Don't expect SkS readers to fossick around in that mess. Cite one portion from WG1 that is based on 'grey literature.' If you're familiar with the details it won't take long. We're waiting.............

Rob, I think it would fairer to suggest the krisbaum is reading frothing-at-mouth denialist sites and prefers to believe what he is told there.

krisbaum, you are implying lead authors have "vested interests" in results. What is the basis of this belief? By the way, I would be perfectly happy for Exxon staff to be reviewing and writing what they would so long as they are Exxon's scientists. I am oil man. By your interpretation of the world, I should be a rabid anti-AGW activist because AGW threatens my current position. In fact, I mostly find widespread acceptance of the IPCC conclusions among my colleagues and client's scientists.

'Rob, I think it would fairer to suggest the krisbaum is reading frothing-at-mouth denialist sites and prefers to believe what he is told there.'

I think its a little unfair you can write such things about me - I havent been nasty to anybody here.

Response:

[DB] "I havent been nasty to anybody here"

Actually, your very first comment in this forum contained sufficient vitriol towards a regular member of this forum that the entire comment necessitated immediate deletion. Nevertheless, can all participants exercise more discretion in their comment formulations, please?